Investigating Michael Byrd's Role in Ashli Babbitt's Shooting and Capitol Police Accountability

Capitol Police officer Michael Byrd’s shooting of Ashli Babbitt during the January 6 riots continues to spark controversy and legal challenges.

Lawsuit Challenges Official Findings

The family of Ashli Babbitt, who was fatally shot during the January 6 Capitol riots, has filed a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. government. This legal action directly challenges the conclusions reached by the Department of Justice and the Capitol Police, who deemed Lt. Michael Byrd’s actions lawful and within departmental policy.

WATCH: Lieutenant Michael Byrd — the U.S. Capitol Police officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt while defending the U.S. House chamber during the Capitol attack — speaks out to @LesterHoltNBC in an exclusive interview.

Read more: https://t.co/DUeCtm1O83 pic.twitter.com/mvDCzlqU9z
— NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt (@NBCNightlyNews) August 27, 2021

The lawsuit contends that Babbitt was “ambushed” and posed no threat, accusing Byrd of violating firearm use standards. This stands in stark contrast to the official narrative, which asserts that Byrd’s actions were necessary to protect lawmakers and staff during the chaos of the Capitol attack.

Capitol Police officer Michael Byrd, the cop who fatally shot Ashli Babbitt during the J6 protest, has lengthy disciplinary record that includes gun incidents.

Those details were uncovered by @RepLoudermilk.

Remember, two years after J6, Byrd was promoted to the rank of… pic.twitter.com/UrMen3eXVY
— Rob Bluey (@RobertBluey) November 21, 2024

Byrd’s Defense and Public Statements

Lt. Byrd has publicly defended his actions, stating that shooting Babbitt was a “last resort” to protect the 60 to 80 House members and staffers he was tasked with safeguarding during the riot. In a televised interview, Byrd asserted, “I know that day I saved countless lives.”

“I tried to wait as long as I could. I hoped and prayed no one tried to enter through those doors. But their failure to comply required me to take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and myself and my fellow officers.” Lieutenant Byrd.

Byrd claims he issued verbal warnings before firing, supported by video evidence. However, the chaotic nature of the event has led to conflicting accounts and interpretations of what transpired in those crucial moments.

Controversial Promotion and Past Incidents

Adding to the controversy, Byrd was promoted from lieutenant to captain in 2023 despite having a history of referrals to the Capitol Police Office of Professional Responsibility. This promotion has raised questions about accountability within the Capitol Police force.

“Michael L. Byrd was promoted from lieutenant to captain in 2023 despite a “significant” history of referrals to the Capitol Police Office of Professional Responsibility, said U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), chairman of the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight.” U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.)

It’s worth noting that Byrd had previously made a mistake in 2019 by leaving his service weapon in a bathroom, an incident unrelated to the Babbitt shooting but one that has been brought up by critics questioning his judgment and fitness for duty.

Ongoing Debate and Political Implications

The shooting of Ashli Babbitt has become a polarizing issue, with differing narratives used for political purposes. Some view Babbitt as a victim of excessive force, while others see Byrd’s actions as necessary to defend the Capitol and its occupants.

The ongoing debate highlights the need for transparency in law enforcement actions, especially in high-profile cases with significant political implications. As the lawsuit progresses, it may shed new light on the events of January 6 and the standards for using force in extraordinary circumstances.

As the nation continues to grapple with the aftermath of the Capitol riot, the case of Michael Byrd and Ashli Babbitt remains a flashpoint in discussions about law enforcement accountability, the limits of protest, and the protection of democratic institutions.